1876 replies to this topic

[Codus N]

Ehh, yeah he wasn't, that's why he was president

Now for a little bit of humor

How many liberals does it take to screw in a lightbulb? How many conservatives?

The answers that i found on the internet were really good.

5 Liberals
1 to buy the bulb
2 to decide the best way to screw it in
2 to blog on the Internet as to how evil Bush is

0 Conservatives
They don't screw, they believe in abstinence.



Taking me out of context. Did i say that Muslims were the same as Al-Quaeda? Im saying Al-Quaeda is mostly made up of Islam, not that Islam is made up of Al-Quaeda....seesh.

There was, and there is a party called the American Nazi party.

Even when it is insulting, we have to respect it, otherwise we would become that which we hate the most.

I can agree with you up to a point. But seriously, anyone with a sane mind wouldn't do that. Lemme ask you this again would you like it if we burn your holy books??

But then again, the prophet Muhammad was an insanely amazing guy like Gandhi. I think he faced much worse than this back then. But still it isn't right. To be honest, he's not respecting our feelings.

[Strangelove]

I can agree with you up to a point. But seriously, anyone with a sane mind wouldn't do that. Lemme ask you this again would you like it if we burn your holy books??

But then again, the prophet Muhammad was an insanely amazing guy like Gandhi. I think he faced much worse than this back then. But still it isn't right. To be honest, he's not respecting our feelings.

Nope, im a catholic, but im not that sensitive. It is what's written in those books that matter, not the book itself.

Even those people that are insane, still have rights.

Edited by Strangelove, 10 September 2010 - 01:47 AM.

[Nate River]

But all of that isn't what I was coming by to post about.

Hell has just frozen over!

Fidel is being a bit generous because he says that Communism "no longer" works for Cuba. It wouldn't have ever worked for Cuba if they weren't getting so much aid from the Soviet Union. But that admission is probably the best that we're going to get from him. He's pretty old and has been long invested in the idea. Hopefully, Cuba will start ramping up the reforms and loosening up the restrictions on business.

I can't figure out it if this is him finally facing reality or him losing his mind.

I'm not saying that. If the Nazi was an American party then they would use the first amendment to justify their actions. If you agree with that pastor, that's the same as agreeing the Nazi had every right to exterminate Jews.

Nice try, but you analogy doesn't hold water for the simple fact nobody dies when the pastor burns the Koran, unless a person offended does so in reacting to it. No one dies by the act itself. Lots of people die when you gas Jews.

Speaking of the Nazi's......

Read Nationalist Socialist Party of America v. Skokie. There are several opinions involving various courts. Read through the history. The Nazi's wanted to march through Skokie precisely because of its heavily Jewish population the city tried to prohibit them from doing so on those grounds. The Nazi's ultimately prevailed in that case.

Other run reads are Brandenburg v. Ohio, which had the Supreme Court finding in favor of the KKK's right to free speech, and RAV v. City of St. Paul reversing the conviction of a juvenile who torched a cross in the lawn of an African American family on free speech grounds. In particular, the following law was deemed unconstitutional:

“ Whoever places on public or private property, a symbol, object, appellation, characterization or graffiti, including, but not limited to, a burning cross or Nazi swastika, which one knows or has reasonable grounds to know arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender commits disorderly conduct and shall be guilty of a misdemeanor"

You and Strange are confusing two entirely separate concepts. The First Amendment deals with the State's ability to stop him from burning the Koran. I don't think the government can. He has the right to do so, but that doesn't mean he should do so. As he has the right to burn, others can protest it, denounce and call him whatever they want. If you want to Strange a racist, you can. You call him the N-word, F-bombs and so on. You cannot do so here because this is not a message board controlled by the State. Just as I could kick you out of my house for saying words, I can kick you off here for using such words. But prohibit you through the force of law? No way.

[Nick Soapdish]

I can't figure out it if this is him finally facing reality or him losing his mind.

I really think that it's the former.

He's out of power and he's trying to give his brother a bit of cover on the minor reforms that he's implementing to try and protect his legacy. If they fix things (or try) before it goes completely to hell instead of waiting for open revolt, it reflects better and they can argue that it worked "for the times". And he's gotta know that he's not getting bailed out by Russia or China any more.

[Codus N]

I can't figure out it if this is him finally facing reality or him losing his mind.



Nice try, but you analogy doesn't hold water for the simple fact nobody dies when the pastor burns the Koran, unless a person offended does so in reacting to it. No one dies by the act itself. Lots of people die when you gas Jews.

Speaking of the Nazi's......

Read Nationalist Socialist Party of America v. Skokie. There are several opinions involving various courts. Read through the history. The Nazi's wanted to march through Skokie precisely because of its heavily Jewish population the city tried to prohibit them from doing so on those grounds. The Nazi's ultimately prevailed in that case.

Other run reads are Brandenburg v. Ohio, which had the Supreme Court finding in favor of the KKK's right to free speech, and RAV v. City of St. Paul reversing the conviction of a juvenile who torched a cross in the lawn of an African American family on free speech grounds. In particular, the following law was deemed unconstitutional:

“ Whoever places on public or private property, a symbol, object, appellation, characterization or graffiti, including, but not limited to, a burning cross or Nazi swastika, which one knows or has reasonable grounds to know arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender commits disorderly conduct and shall be guilty of a misdemeanor"

You and Strange are confusing two entirely separate concepts. The First Amendment deals with the State's ability to stop him from burning the Koran. I don't think the government can. He has the right to do so, but that doesn't mean he should do so. As he has the right to burn, others can protest it, denounce and call him whatever they want. If you want to Strange a racist, you can. You call him the N-word, F-bombs and so on. You cannot do so here because this is not a message board controlled by the State. Just as I could kick you out of my house for saying words, I can kick you off here for using such words. But prohibit you through the force of law? No way.

Nobody will probably die, yes that's a possibility but the chances of lives being lost are very high.

That's exactly it. He knew that it would instigate Muslims around the world to create havoc & chaos. Therefore he should be found guilty. He knew by doing so he would be found guilty by all means. but yet he goes insane & wants to go through it. I can understand you taking this from a legal standpoint POV. But still, if we look at it from a moral point of view it is completely wrong. I think this is the problem with America's constitution, It lets in very few moralistic/social points of view.

As for your last point, Thank You. I understand you more than what Strange said. I suppose my views differ from yours because you're using American laws while I'm influenced by my country's laws which lets in moralistic standpoints. We use a balanced mix of moral values & legals. While you guys use legals outweighing the morals. Also, this just showed me how amazing Fareed Zakaria is with his analysis of American Democracy becoming even more undemocratic. I completely agree with this guy and yet his words seem to fall on deaf ears.

BTW, you're not gonna ban me are you?

Edited by Newkerz, 10 September 2010 - 02:45 AM.

[Dreamer]

I'm not going to get too involved with religion and politics mixed but i wanted to talk about the recent events. The pastor should know that God created and loves all with the religious practice the pastor has and should'nt have forgotten since i'm a Baptists myself. It just not right in my opinion and would deminish the pastor as a christian by showing such hatred.

As for the mosque being built, i don't mind it after giving it some thought but it's hard to see it built with over 60% not wanting it to be placed there.

[Codus N]

^speaking of the Mosque, I think the guy planned it all out that by doing this, he would make the developers of the mosque scram by threatening to burn the Korans. This is a very dirty tactic & I don't like it. In fact, I'm thinking this guy conspired the reps.

Edited by Newkerz, 10 September 2010 - 02:43 AM.

[Nate River]

That's exactly it. He knew that it would instigate Muslims around the world to create havoc & chaos. Therefore he should be found guilty. He knew by doing so he would be found guilty by all means. but yet he goes insane & wants to go through it. I can understand you taking this from a legal standpoint POV. But still, if we look at it from a moral point of view it is completely wrong. I think this is the problem with America's constitution, It lets in very few moralistic/social points of view.

Nobody will probably die, yes that's a possibility but the chances of lives being lost are very high.

As for your last point, Thank You. I understand you more than what Strange said. I suppose my views differ from yours because you're using American laws while I'm influenced by my country's laws which lets in moralistic standpoints. We use a balanced mix of moral values & legals. While you guys use legals outweighing the morals.

BTW, you're not gonna ban me are you?

Of course, not. I was illustrating a point. The First Amendment prohibits the State from abridging freedom of speech. If there is no state action there is no violation.

That law I quoted was declared unconstitutional in RAV v. St. Paul because it violated the first amendment. For the record, I'm an attorney, so I tend to see it from that perspective, especially when it involves the constitution.

[Insurrection]

I'm not saying that. If the Nazi was an American party then they would use the first amendment to justify their actions. If you agree with that pastor, that's the same as agreeing the Nazi had every right to exterminate Jews.

Look up Skokie in google. I'm with Nate on this one, Beware the Power of Attorney!

That's exactly it. He knew that it would instigate Muslims around the world to create havoc & chaos. Therefore he should be found guilty. He knew by doing so he would be found guilty by all means. but yet he goes insane & wants to go through it. I can understand you taking this from a legal standpoint POV. But still, if we look at it from a moral point of view it is completely wrong. I think this is the problem with America's constitution, It lets in very few moralistic/social points of view.

As for your last point, Thank You. I understand you more than what Strange said. I suppose my views differ from yours because you're using American laws while I'm influenced by my country's laws which lets in moralistic standpoints. We use a balanced mix of moral values & legals. While you guys use legals outweighing the morals.

BTW, you're not gonna ban me are you?

He's a fundamntalist christian, who by the way has just said he's stopping to go through with it. He believes people who aren't christian are inferior (it was on the news bio) and by contiually bringing him up we have given him what he wants, attention. That said, all of us agree that he's not the smartest person who ever lived?

That's your interpretation of our laws that we have few moralistic and social points of view? There's an interpretation between what morals are. Indonesia's morals are different from American morals just as Chinese morals are different from South Africans. To say your laws are in fact more "moral" than our laws is like saying chocolate is better than vanilla. That's why I don't like your arguement because there's a different set of morals per society. Like in Iran it's morally accepted by the government to stone adulterous women.

I'm not comparing yours to those I'm just trying to show why morals are different between peoples and society. Right wing and left wing people can share a spectrum yet have different morals on different things. Like the Death Penalty and stem cells.

Edited by Insurrection, 10 September 2010 - 02:52 AM.

[Nate River]

He's a fundamntalist christian, who by the way has just said he's stopping to go through with it. He believes people who aren't christian are inferior (it was on the news bio) and by contiually bringing him up we have given him what he wants, attention.

That's your interpretation of our laws that we have few moralistic and social points of view? There's an interpretation between what morals are. Indonesia's morals are different from American morals just as Chinese morals are different from South Africans. To say your laws are in fact more "moral" than our laws is like saying chocolate is better than vanilla. That's why I don't like your arguement because there's a different set of morals per society. Like in Iran it's morally accepted by the government to stone adulterous women.

It's actually more complicated than that. Morals differ within societies and from generation to generation. The real issue from a First Amendment standpoint is deciding what speech is permissible. Everyone would love to have only appropriate or good speech, but what is that? And once you given the government the power to decide what this is, it's easy to see how such power can be abused to silence political opponents and to move into realms of censoring even good speech. Yes, the consequence of something like the first amendment is that it gives people the power to say and do some really offensive things, but how many Democrats would feel comfortable with Bush and a Republican Congress deciding what speech was good and criminalizing the rest? And vice versa?

I forgot who said it, but the best way to combat such speech is with more speech.

[Insurrection]

It's actually more complicated than that. Morals differ within societies and from generation to generation. The real issue from a First Amendment standpoint is deciding what speech is permissible. Everyone would love to have only appropriate or good speech, but what is that? And once you given the government the power to decide what this is, it's easy to see how such power can be abused to silence political opponents and to move into realms of censoring even good speech. Yes, the consequence of something like the first amendment is that it gives people the power to say and do some really offensive things, but how many Democrats would feel comfortable with Bush and a Republican Congress deciding what speech was good and criminalizing the rest? And vice versa?

I forgot who said it, but the best way to combat such speech is with more speech.

True.

And since I know them, none of them. And vice versa it's a bipartisan opinion!

*song line* Of course there's the boys at the freakin FCC!!

[Codus N]

Of course, not. I was illustrating a point. The First Amendment prohibits the State from abridging freedom of speech. If there is no state action there is no violation.

That law I quoted was declared unconstitutional in RAV v. St. Paul because it violated the first amendment. For the record, I'm an attorney, so I tend to see it from that perspective, especially when it involves the constitution.

Yeah, I knew you were a lawyer, And I'm just a 2L law student which means I'm a rookie compared to you.

It's actually more complicated than that. Morals differ within societies and from generation to generation. The real issue from a First Amendment standpoint is deciding what speech is permissible. Everyone would love to have only appropriate or good speech, but what is that? And once you given the government the power to decide what this is, it's easy to see how such power can be abused to silence political opponents and to move into realms of censoring even good speech. Yes, the consequence of something like the first amendment is that it gives people the power to say and do some really offensive things, but how many Democrats would feel comfortable with Bush and a Republican Congress deciding what speech was good and criminalizing the rest? And vice versa?

I forgot who said it, but the best way to combat such speech is with more speech.

Let's not forget it could also be abused to offend people. Such as the case with this one. I'm glad that Indonesia has put some limitations regarding free speech. I think you tend to prefer the Socratic method of approaching legalities.

My professor prefers to mix moral values with legals. In a very balanced way, of course. I prefer this approach instead of your approach.

Off topic: You're a pokespec fan?? me too!! they seriously need to animate it!!!

[Nate River]

Yeah, I knew you were a lawyer, And I'm just a 2L law student which means I'm a rookie compared to you.



Let's not forget it could also be abused to offend people. Such as the case with this one. I'm glad that Indonesia has put some limitations regarding free speech. I think you tend to prefer the Socratic method of approaching legalities.

My professor prefers to mix moral values with legals. In a very balanced way, of course. I prefer this approach instead of your approach.

Off topic: You're a pokespec fan?? me too!! they seriously need to animate it!!!

Socratic method? What do you mean? There is a manner of teaching used in American law schools, which are great if you like reading about archiac appellate law cases (except for Con Law, that was fun), but not so great on teaching you how to be a lawyer. If I gone solo right out of lawschool, I'd have been sued for malpractice within a month. Thankfully, I didn't do that.

Pokespec fan? Dunno, if I am. What is Pokespec? If you are referring to my avatar, yeah, I like her character, still not sure what Pokespec is though?

[Codus N]

Hmm... I was reading "Law School for Dummies" and it explained about that method. I figured you used a similar way to that method for viewing things. Oh yeah, pokespec is short for Pokemon special. It's basically an "older" version of the franchise. It's a 1000x better than the kiddie anime. I suggest you read it if you're a true Pokemon fan.

Edited by Newkerz, 10 September 2010 - 03:47 AM.

[Nate River]

Hmm... I was reading "Law School for Dummies" and it talked about that method. I figured you used a similar way to that method for viewing things.

It's a method of instruction. I suppose there might be elements of that when I speak, but it's not a perspective of looking at things.

Ah. I'm not really into the series, I just like certain characters, but I'll probably check it out.

[Codus N]

Oh, I see. Ok, point taken.

EDIT: yes, you should read it. It's a fun series that every Pokemon fan should read.

Of course, not. I was illustrating a point. The First Amendment prohibits the State from abridging freedom of speech. If there is no state action there is no violation.

This is what's wrong with the American constitution. It doesn't prevent any anarchism-provoking actions. Indonesia's clearly & strictly states that any actions that is deemed to be dangerous & could provoke anarchism is considered guilty/ a criminal act. I cannot believe the conscience of you attorneys being so dull (no offense, Nate being honest, I'm rather frustrated at how literal how you're seeing it.) I believe what Fareed Zakaria says about America being more undemocratic is about how you attorneys view cases so literal. It's true that not letting your feelings get best of you in a case is good. But when do you need not to throw away your conscience? I think this is why America is becoming undemocratic. You don't know how to fit in your moral values/conscience at the right time. Or perhaps, you don't know how to use it correctly.

If I were you, I would go with my conscience instead of seeing it the way it is for this case.

Edited by Newkerz, 11 September 2010 - 12:30 PM.

[Insurrection]

This is what's wrong with the American constitution. It doesn't prevent any anarchism-provoking actions. Indonesia's clearly & strictly states that any actions that is deemed to be dangerous & could provoke anarchism is considered guilty/ a criminal act. I cannot believe the conscience of you attorneys being so dull (no offense, Nate being honest, I'm rather frustrated at how literal how you're seeing it.) I believe what Fareed Zakaria says about America being more undemocratic is about how you attorneys view cases so literal. It's true that not letting your feelings get best of you in a case is good. But when do you need not to throw away your conscience? I think this is why America is becoming undemocratic. You don't know how to fit in your moral values/conscience at the right time. Or perhaps, you don't know how to use it correctly.

If I were you, I would go with my conscience instead of seeing it the way it is for this case.

First if that were true, then I could yell fire in a crowded theater. There are incitement to violence laws and such but you're missing the point.

Try reading this

Edited by Insurrection, 11 September 2010 - 07:21 PM.

[Strangelove]

There are actions that cause violence, and riots. That is deemed punishable by law.

But there is freedom of speech, and freedom of expression. Is a thin line, but freedom of expression is not the same as anarchism. Anarchism is when you blow things up just because. Freedom of speech is when you are allowed to act against society moral conduct, without inciting violence.

[Codus N]

First if that were true, then I could yell fire in a crowded theater. There are incitement to violence laws and such but you're missing the point.

Try reading this

I'm afraid I'm going to disagree on that. Yes, free speech prevented it as well. But what if that guy was too boneheaded & decided to go through it while ignoring all the denouncement?? there are some idiots in this world that just happen to be like that. Say, dictators for example. An example would be Soeharto. who went through with a mega-project proposed by his wife & ignored all the denouncement by his people. If that pastor was like Soeharto, that would be disastrous. The reason why America is becoming more & more undemocratic is precisely because you don't have laws that can try anyone whosoever attempts anything inflammatory or anything that could provoke violence. If that pastor was in my country, he would've been tried right away. You don't know how to limit yourself. Basically American society is becoming more & more greedy with their rights to the point it becomes uncontrollable at times. Which is exactly what Fareed Zakaria says. If you guys had laws that specifically states that attempts at these kinds of stuffs can be tried, the whole thing would've been nipped in the bud earlier.

There are actions that cause violence, and riots. That is deemed punishable by law.

But there is freedom of speech, and freedom of expression. Is a thin line, but freedom of expression is not the same as anarchism. Anarchism is when you blow things up just because. Freedom of speech is when you are allowed to act against society moral conduct, without inciting violence.

Read my reply to insurrection.

I'm rather impressed....

This guy actually had the guts to admit that the media, including himself that he was wrong. He's also taken a great approach to this. I'm very glad that there's a few men out there saying this. Too bad those reps will just try to control the media with their large business connections.

Edited by Newkerz, 12 September 2010 - 07:05 AM.

[Insurrection]

I'm afraid I'm going to disagree on that. Yes, free speech prevented it as well. But what if that guy was too boneheaded & decided to go through it while ignoring all the denouncement?? there are some idiots in this world that just happen to be like that.
Say, dictators for example. An example would be Soeharto. who went through with a mega-project proposed by his wife & ignored all the denouncement by his people. If that pastor was like Soeharto, that would be disastrous.
The reason why America is becoming more & more undemocratic is precisely because you don't have laws that can try anyone whosoever attempts anything inflammatory or anything that could provoke violence.
If that pastor was in my country, he would've been tried right away. You don't know how to limit yourself. Basically American society is becoming more & more greedy with their rights to the point it becomes uncontrollable at times. Which is exactly what Fareed Zakaria says. If you guys had laws that specifically states that attempts at these kinds of stuffs can be tried, the whole thing would've been nipped in the bud earlier.

That's not true either. All freedom of speech has limitations, you can't call for the deaths of others. Fareed may be smart but that doesn't make him always right. I'll point this out, you said scholars had a high status in Indonesia however there is always someone from an institute or think tank or university on television or in a journal that's here. We're surrounded by them, but you can have a dissenting viewpoint. Someone can say they're wrong and express if they're wrong.

The courts ruled you could burn the American flag as a sign of freedom of expression, so if the people in the Middle East were here burning the flag, they could do it, but be viewed harshly by everyone for doing so. It all depends on intent.

Also you're really comparing one guy in Florida to your country's old dictator? Doesn't really equate there don't ya think?

I really don't like this concept that we're less democratic because we don't limit freedom of speech and expression even more, that's not a solution that's a cop out. Also because we technically aren't a democracy we're a federal democratic Republic. And what's with this greedy stuff?

Edited by Insurrection, 12 September 2010 - 08:23 AM.